In today's Canada, we pro-lifers cannot say (at least in a public forum), "Abortion is murder." We can't bring the moral issue up, because it is too related to religion and Canada prides itself on judiciously separating Church from State. Syndicated columnist David Warren points out that Canada's federal politicians make sure we know they have consciences and religious convictions, yet these parliamentarians insist they always refuse to act on them when it comes time to vote in the House – even if it's a "free" vote. These MPs want voters to know they have a conscience – because if they didn't, this would make them inhuman and unelectable. Yet they also stress that they are secular enough not to listen to the dictates of their conscience or religious beliefs. Separation of Church and State is paramount. In fact, it's almost a religion unto itself.

On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Roe v. Wade, a challenge to a Texas statute that made it a crime to perform an abortion unless a woman's life was at stake. The case had been filed by "Jane Roe," an unmarried woman who wanted to safely and legally end her pregnancy. Siding with Roe, the court struck down the Texas law. Roe v. Wade has come to be known as the case that legalized abortion in the United States.

At the time the decision was handed down, nearly all states outlawed abortion except to save a woman's life or for limited reasons such as preserving the woman's health. Roe v. Wade rendered these laws unconstitutional, making abortion services safer and more accessible to women throughout the USA.

Today, the slickest defender of Roe v. Wade is Barack Obama, the newly elected Democrat senator from Illinois and the youngest-ever editor of the Harvard Law Review.

How do we oppose such an attractive candidate in this particular arena? We must face him down on his own court, which is the law. Shall we discuss the "justice" of abortion? It is without question a form of capital punishment, which is a state's right in the U.S. Some states support capital punishment, while others don't. In Canada, the right to kill the unborn is federally mandated and does not fall under provincial jurisdiction.

Murder in self-defense is not murder and the victim of the attack on his or her life is judged "not guilty." However, with Caesarean births, it is now as easy to get a C-section as it is to get a tonsillectomy in Canada's hospitals. The self-defense (or health protection) plea is ludicrously weak.

So, we're left with the only reason most women and teenage girls have to fall back on for getting an abortion. The gestating fetus is an inconvenience and embarrassment to their bodies, their lifestyle, and their so-called real lives dominated by careerism and lethal irresponsibility.

This is not just an American problem. It's hypocritical of Canada to champion human rights worldwide and yet live with such a federal license to capitally punish the most powerless of all – the unborn – for creating such terrible inconvenience for their careerist parents. Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not, I think, include the right to deprive life to inconvenient fetuses.

If Canada is so concerned about a dwindling population that won't be able to support the country's traditionally generous social programs, why does it condone the murder of so many future Canadians – that is, 330,000 unborn fetuses every year? Why is immigration (which totals about 300,000 new arrivals per year) always emphasized as the only way to replenish Canada's population?

Why can't these questions even be asked in a public forum? Have I "crossed a line" here?

Michael Moriarty is a Golden Globe and Emmy Award-winning actor who has appeared in the landmark television series Law and Order, the mini-series Taken, and the recent TV-movie The 4400. Moriarty is now filming Deadly Skies, a TV-movie that will soon be broadcast on the here! TV network. He lives in Maple Ridge, B.C.